Trump Vs Harris Debate Analysis Policies, Values, and Manipulation | Tom Bilyeu Reacts

Politics is a game of manipulation, and the real challenge is not just what you see, but how the frame around it shapes your understanding.

Hello everybody, and welcome! Thank you for joining us today. We're going to be talking about the one and probably only 2024 presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. I think it was very different from what a lot of people expected, and it certainly was for me. However, there’s something far bigger than the topics discussed on stage that we really need to be talking about, and we’re going to get into it right now.

Forgive the running start to this episode, as we just started talking off the cuff while everything was getting set up. But I believe it was a worthwhile conversation, so we just kept going. Without further ado, here is our take on the 2024 presidential debate.

Now, let’s dive into the discussion. One of the key points I want to address is the base assumptions that you’re going to use when things don’t work out. How are you going to adjust? You’ve got Kamala Harris, and I encourage you to write this down because I definitely want to talk about it.

Kamala Harris has changed her position on a lot of things. Personally, I’m okay with that; I want people to learn and grow. Now, I say that I’m okay with it in the reality that I know I’m being manipulated. I understand that politics is a game of manipulation, but I still am not so cynical that I don’t want someone to change their opinion. I think it would be a fool’s errand to say, "This person said something four years ago, and now I’m going to duct tape them to that forever." That is just stupid to me. I want someone who updates their thinking.

However, because I’m not naive, I understand that she may just be saying the things I want to hear. So, I need to see the policy and understand the base assumptions. What I’m getting is this topline idea: "I haven’t changed my values; I’ve changed my positions." Okay, that’s a dope talking point, but now you’ve got to back that up. What do you mean? What are your values? Tell me your values, and then what data do you look at to see if you’re actually living in accordance with your values or not?

This is my whole beef—this is my beef at the level of a company and at the level of politics. Before you put a policy in place, you have to say, "This is what I expect to happen from this policy." You need specifics and real data points that can be checked. Then, you actually check and see if this policy is taking us where we thought it was going or not. The thing is, they don’t do this, and that makes me really sad.

Politics is a game of manipulation; it’s about setting a frame. There’s a really important axiomatic idea that people need to hold on to: it does not matter what you look at; it matters what you see. It’s a fancy way of saying, "Is the glass half empty or half full?" We’re both looking at the same glass. They set the frame: glass half empty, glass half full. Then, they have to control the frame.

Because the glass is half empty, it means all of these things. The parties are not going to allow anything that might change the frame. This is why I think the DNC is so ruthless in keeping people off the ballot; they know that people are going to challenge their frame. The Democrats are doing a very good job—like, as someone who has studied magic, I find this masterful. You have to control where people look so that you can pull the sleight of hand.

From getting RFK off the ballot to stopping people in the Green Party from getting on the ballot, to working closely with mainstream media to just keep that frame—it's really interesting. Every now and then, I will be in an interview, and I will come in with a frame—not even necessarily intentionally, as we all have a frame of reference. I’ll come in with my frame of reference, and then the guest will say something so unexpected that it changes the frame completely.

When I’m in their frame, I feel completely unmoored. Unmoored is the right answer. All of a sudden, I don’t know how to even talk about it. It’s like we all live in a fortress of our frame of reference. I understand the world from here, but when someone takes you out of that frame of reference and puts you somewhere completely new, you feel defenseless. You don’t know how to even talk about it.

=> 00:04:57

When someone shifts your frame of reference, it can leave you feeling vulnerable and unprepared, revealing the raw truth of how we navigate the complexities of communication and politics.

Now and then, I will be in an interview, and I will have come in with a frame—not even necessarily intentionally. We all have a frame of reference. So, I’ll come in with my frame of reference, and then the guest will say something so unexpected to me that they change the frame so hard and so far. Because I'm not trying to control the frame, I go with them. When I'm in their frame, I feel completely unored. Unored is the right answer. All of a sudden, I don’t know. It's like we all live in a fortress of our frame of reference. We think, "Hey, I understand the world from here." When someone takes you out of that frame of reference and puts you somewhere completely new, you feel defenseless. You don’t know how to even talk about it; you don’t know how to process the information.

The need to stop that from happening on both sides is so intense that we're not talking policy or expected outcomes. Because then, you can be held to account. I feel Trump is so unideological. I don’t know what the right way to categorize Trump is; he doesn’t have a set of concretized beliefs. I don’t know; you never know what he’s going to say. I don’t think he knows what he’s going to say. So, you have this sense of being uncontrolled. In fact, this is a really interesting point about him. Because Trump does not come in with pre-prepared talking points, he’s going to say whatever's on his mind because he is largely emotional.

The first time we, as the voting public, encountered him, it was, to quote Dave Chappelle, "a star was born." He said, "Oh, I know the system is corrupt because I've been using it," and they know it’s corrupt, but they’re still not going to stop it because their donors give them money. It was so shocking the way he changed the frame of reference; he said the quiet part out loud. People were like, "Whoa!" But now he feels constrained somehow. It’s like he knows, "Okay, if I go full-blown wild card, you have no idea what I’m going to say." He’s going to lose because he’s already played that card. People already know that side of him; it doesn’t win people over anymore; it now turns people off.

He has lost some of that wild man appeal by doing that. Now, it was on display; he became presidential. He became a watered-down version of himself. The parts where he was saying, "They’re eating cats and dogs," and "I didn’t lose the election," when he’s hitting those points and getting really animated, he still feels restrained. He is going just far enough to seem unhinged, but not so far that people are like, "Yeah, get him, Trump!" I have a feeling something is going to break down there. I think she kind of used that against him in certain places where she almost baited him into doing it.

That’s why people are leaving his rally; it had nothing to do with foreign policy or what they were saying, but she knew it would agitate him, get him involved, get him excited, and then he kind of bit for the trap. He said, "I had the best rallies ever; I had the most votes of any Republican president," just kind of riffing and saying things. To your point, it’s not classic Trump; it’s not the Trump that got him into office. It’s the 2020 Trump who’s kind of been taken out, who’s like, "What you’re doing is too much; sit down." The wild card that we are now getting turned off by.

Do you know who Anderson Silva is? The m f from Brazil? Yeah, he used to be able to mind control people. He would go into the Octagon, dodge punches, slip punches, and people lost before they ever got in the ring with him because he really did seem invincible. It just seemed like people couldn’t hit him. It looked like he was Neo in The Matrix; he could dodge punches and kicks. It felt like he was just superhuman. Then he goes into one fight and gets knocked out. He was doing his thing, and then, bang! After that, that mystique was gone.

I will be interested to see if Trump can deal with that because, again, I can’t state this enough: the heartbreaking reality of politics is, at its essence, politics is manipulation. I’ll say it again and again so people know what I mean by that. It’s about setting a frame, controlling a frame. It’s not about, "Here is a policy; here is the expected outcome of that policy; let’s judge whether that policy worked or not." It’s not that, and I don’t know. I think that politics is an evolutionary format.

=> 00:09:07

Politics is all about manipulation, and when the truth gets too complicated, people just want simple answers.

It was as if he couldn't be hit; it looked like he was Neo in The Matrix. He could dodge punches and kicks, making him seem superhuman. However, in one fight, he got knocked out, and just like that, that mystique was gone. I will be interested to see if Trump can deal with that.

Going again, I can't state this enough: the heartbreaking reality of politics is that, at its essence, politics is manipulation. I will say it again and again so people know what I mean by that. It's about setting a frame and controlling a frame. It’s not simply presenting a policy and its expected outcome to judge whether it worked or not. I think politics is an evolutionary format; it has become what it is not because people are evil, but because the masses respond in a certain way. They need heuristics, which is a fancy word for shortcuts—I should have just said that. People want you to tell them in really simple ways what it means to ride with you.

So, what does it say about me if I'm on your side? Tell them that, and then provide the words to use when they encounter someone who says, "You're bad for following that person." They can then respond, "No, I'm not; I'm for whatever," and you give them the talking points. This is why people talk about talking points. It is excruciatingly disheartening to watch because I have a base assumption that we are in a positive feedback loop, and this loop is going to break capitalism.

In breaking capitalism, we could see a decline of America as a world power, potentially leading into a tremendous recession that drags on for decades. Or it could escalate into a hot war. Now, it tends to break into hot war, but I don't want to oversell things. If we don't understand that the difference between a feedback loop and a loop is that the product of the feedback loop exacerbates the loop itself, we are missing a critical point. The more debt we rack up, which is in my opinion essentially all they should have talked about in the debate, the more fragile the economy becomes. Eventually, we will have to pay the piper.

None of us know if we are going to have to deal with this in five years or fifty years, but we will have to deal with it. By implementing policies that are not designed to zero out excess spending, we are just weakening the economy. When Harris goes to bat for things that sound really awesome to the average person—like giving money to start a small business or paying off student loans—people have to ask: Are we living below our means and now going to dip into our savings to pay for these? Are we living at our means and going to take on a little bit of debt to do this? Or are we already astronomically in debt historically, and now just going to take on more debt?

Economics is so confusing that people just don’t have anything to hold on to, and so the confused mind says no. Politicians can’t tell the truth, so they simplify things. They get into power and kick the can down the road. I don’t have kids, but that’s terrifying to me. Even if these issues happen after I die, I don’t think people understand how bad things can get. If you don’t have a sense of history and only look at the last 70 years since World War II, you might think everything is fine.

Look, we’ve had the Vietnam War, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and conflicts we weren’t involved in all over the world. However, there hasn’t been a big world war that reminds people of how nasty and brutish things can become. So, they look at the last 70 years and say, “This is pretty dope. What do we really have to worry about?” Running our country this way doesn’t seem so bad. You can even look at Japan and say, “Hey, state inflation is not that bad.” Tokyo is my favorite city in the world, but there’s a reason I don’t live there: the opportunity is way lower. When opportunity is lower, the implications for the future become even more concerning.

=> 00:13:35

Innovation thrives on opportunity; without it, stagnation sets in and progress stalls.

To understand the current state of affairs, one must consider the sense of history. If you only look at the last 70 years since World War II, it becomes evident that while we have experienced conflicts like the Vietnam War, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq, we have not faced another major world war that serves as a stark reminder of how nasty and brutish such conflicts can become. As a result, people reflect on the last seven decades and conclude, "this is pretty dope." They perceive that running the country in this manner is not so bad after all.

For instance, one can look at Japan and note that state inflation is not that bad. Tokyo is my favorite city in the world, but there is a reason I don’t live there: the opportunity is significantly lower. When opportunity diminishes, innovation suffers. A certain subset of humanity is inherently drawn to innovation, and when opportunities are scarce, that drive diminishes.

If you are tired of trying to find the real truth in news reporting, it is crucial to discern whether the information you receive is genuine reporting or influenced by bias, narratives, trolling, or selective reporting. In this context, I recommend using Ground News. Ground News compiles stories from across the global political spectrum, providing you with every angle to ensure you get the full picture and are not blindsided. I particularly appreciate their election page, where you can learn more about candidates, sort news coverage by key voting issues, and access a specific election-related blind spot feed to ensure you don’t miss important stories. You can visit ground.news/ or use the link in the video description to subscribe today. If you sign up through my link, you’ll receive 40% off the same Vantage plan I use for unlimited access to all their features. I genuinely like Ground News, and I believe you will too. They are doing important work, and I hope you check them out to stay informed and eliminate your blind spots.

Now, can we dig into the impact of inflation? We often discuss the surface level of inflation, focusing on grocery stores and small businesses. However, downstream in the economy, as we navigate high prices, we encounter issues like unemployment and a lack of opportunities. This leads to a stagnation point, which I believe is more critical and warrants further discussion. Are you suggesting that in Japan, the economic pressures inhibit the ability to create opportunities? What opportunities are lacking in Japan that are currently present in America?

The most important thing to understand is that politics and economic policy are all downstream of culture. This is why I am concerned about the cultural shift in America towards being anti-capitalist and desiring equal outcomes, rather than recognizing that when someone has the chance to win disproportionately, they often strive harder. For example, Michael Jordan would not have become the greatest of all time without the opportunity to excel.

I acknowledge that both Michael Jordan and I share a certain drive, which some might label as a sickness. The reason I work as hard as I do and prioritize building businesses over having children is a reflection of this drive. If someone claims that this is a sickness, I would agree, but I also believe it is essential to have the opportunity to express oneself in this way, as it contributes to a better world. Innovation is what has created the abundance we see today.

If I could encourage people to experience a season of Alone, I believe it would change everything. Watching a season of Alone illustrates how innovation has transformed our existence—from struggling against bears for salmon, dealing with Wolverines stealing food, or facing starvation—to achieving cultural momentum that allows us to pass knowledge and establish stable tribes capable of surviving harsh winters. Throughout history, humans have endured numerous challenges, including ice ages, and have emerged on the other side through ingenuity. Once you comprehend that failing to promote innovation culturally leads to stagnation, you begin to understand the importance of fostering a culture that encourages progress.

=> 00:17:35

Embrace innovation and the pursuit of excellence, or risk stagnation and societal instability.

Live a season of Alone that would change everything. Watch a season of Alone and you will get it. Innovation took us from being in fights with bears over salmon, having Wolverines come and steal our store of food, or just straight up starving to death. People don't understand how hard it would have been for the human animal to finally get enough cultural momentum where we could pass knowledge on through culture. This allowed us to establish stable tribes that could survive a harsh winter.

There have been times in the past, such as during the ice ages, when humans managed to get on the other side of that challenge through Ingenuity. Once you understand that if you don't promote Innovation culturally, the culture begins to stagnate. You have to create that opportunity.

There was a time in the 80s when Japan was just on fire. If you look at American movies made in the 80s, like Back to the Future, it was always portrayed that characters worked for a Japanese corporation because it seemed like the Japanese were going to take over everything. Even in Die Hard, which came out in the early 90s, characters were depicted as working for Japanese corporations. However, Japan has such a collectivist society that it never ended up breaking free of that. They ended up facing economic woes, where their debt to GDP is now way out of whack, leading to stagflation.

I don't know all the specifics of how it broke down, but for anyone that wants to use Japan as a case study, it illustrates how a nation can go from looking like a rising global economic superpower to effectively relegating itself to a steady state. Now, they're not a bad country; it's amazing, but they're not the economic superpower they once were.

Currently, in the US, we are having a debate about whether we want to continue to promote that kind of pursuit of Excellence, which makes people today very uncomfortable. Once you begin to villainize Excellence, people stop pursuing it because that is not how you get the admiration of your tribe. If you gain admiration by keeping your head down, doing as little work as possible, and avoiding punishment at all costs, you're not going to go very far. Instead, you risk having a bunch of people run roughshod over you, leading to a growing divide.

That’s what we are seeing now; some people are just wired for success. They are going to build gigantic businesses and engage with the government to create policies that benefit them, allowing them to grow bigger and bigger. As soon as you have that massive economic divide, you end up with a society that is unstable. This is what we have now because the average person does not celebrate the pursuit of Excellence.

There was a lot of discourse on Twitter, with many people saying Cala won, Trump won, Cala lost, and Trump lost. An underlying sentiment I noticed from many people was their wish for a Third Party candidate to be on the stage. They expressed a desire for candidates like Kennedy or Jill Stein to be included.

What advice would I give to people caught with these two choices they don't really love? How should they evaluate their election process? How should they approach the question of who to vote for? Those are two very different questions.

To break down who you should vote for, you really have to ascertain what their base assumptions are. What makes for a great entrepreneur is someone who can solve a novel problem. This is one of the things I try to teach young entrepreneurs: your job is to solve not only a problem you've never seen before but also to solve a problem nobody has ever seen before.

In Impact Theory University, I teach what I call the physics of progress. The reason I call it that is because there’s nothing below it; it just is how you get better at something. To do that, you have to know where you want to go. In the political sense, you need to understand the policy you will pursue to get there before you implement it. You have to say, "This is what we think will...

=> 00:21:18

Great entrepreneurs thrive by tackling problems no one else has dared to solve, and it's all about understanding the journey of progress and the emotional landscape that shapes decision-making.

What makes for a great entrepreneur is somebody that can solve a novel problem. This is one of the key lessons I try to impart to young entrepreneurs: your job is to solve not only a problem you've never seen before but also to be able to solve a problem that nobody has ever seen before.

In my teachings at Impact Theory University, I emphasize what I call the physics of progress. The reason I refer to it as "physics" is that it represents fundamental principles that govern improvement. To effectively progress, you must first know where you want to go. In a political sense, this means identifying the policy you intend to pursue to reach your destination. Before implementing any policy, you should articulate what you expect will happen, ideally based on historical precedents.

Once you have a hypothesis, you must run an experiment with a finite time period. For instance, if you believe a policy will reduce debt by 50%, you shouldn't wait ten years to assess its impact. Instead, you should establish reasonable growth rates and look for early indicators of success. It is crucial to avoid the trap of postponing results conveniently until a later date, which often allows for political maneuvering.

Base assumptions are vital for understanding how someone will approach a novel problem. Unfortunately, this critical aspect is often absent from public discourse, and if I'm completely honest, I don't believe it ever will be. The architecture of the human mind is such that individuals are preoccupied with their families and daily struggles. They often lack the time or energy to engage deeply with complex issues. Instead, they seek distilled talking points and reassurance that their choices are valid, especially when faced with skepticism from others.

Ultimately, people will vote based on emotion. This emotional decision-making is influenced by the framing of issues. Each side in a political debate seeks to control the narrative and influence emotions rather than engage in logical discussions about how their policies will help. While some politicians, like Harris, may articulate their policies' impacts on people's lives effectively, they often do so without grounding their arguments in historical economic data.

Historically, if you want to boom the economy, the common approach has been to reduce taxes and regulations. The seesaw between regulation and deregulation occurs because, as regulations decrease, consumers may become vulnerable to exploitation, prompting a return to stricter controls. This cycle reflects the inherent tension between the government's desire for growth and control and businesses' incentives to monopolize and exclude competition.

This dynamic is why I do not identify as a libertarian. Given the architecture of the human mind, corporations can become deranged, necessitating a government to keep them in check. However, governments can also become deranged, which is why it is essential for the people to hold them accountable. This belief leads me to advocate for free speech, as silencing voices can quickly lead to tyranny.

Returning to the initial question of how people can break the duopoly of political choices, I genuinely hope that the ability to recognize manipulation in real-time is having a tangible impact on individuals. I want them to realize, "Oh, I see, I'm caught up.

=> 00:25:29

To break free from the manipulation of a two-party system, we must recognize the underlying assumptions driving our beliefs and demand a more inclusive political landscape.

To keep people out, and so this is why I'm not libertarian. I think that corporations, given the architecture of the human mind, will derange, and so you need a government that keeps them in check. However, governments also derange, and you need the people to keep them in check. This is why I'm not a free speech absolutist, but I come very, very close. If people are not allowed to say what they see, then you can get tyranny pretty fast.

Going back to the first part of your question, how do people break this duopoly of only having two choices? I really hope that being able to see the manipulation in real time is having a very real impact on people. They might realize, "Oh, I see I'm caught up in a game of manipulation. I see the frame that's being set for me; I see the frame that they're trying to control me with." But no one's looking at the outcomes of whether this stuff is actually working or not. Therefore, I demand, by speaking to my Congress people, going on podcasts, and tweeting out, that we make it as easy as possible for more people to get on the ballot. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that there will need to be some constraints to that so it doesn't just become an insane clown show.

I mean, maybe I haven't thought through this well, but my instinct is that in all things, you need some regulation. However, you have to be very, very careful of having too much. The fact that RFK was kept off of strategic battleground states—if that doesn't really upset you, you're not paying attention. Even if you hate RFK, you should want the idea to be seen and for people to go, "That's a terrible idea; I reject it." The fact that they're doing the same thing with the Green Party is also terrible. Furthermore, the fact that the mainstream media doesn't cover this is terrible.

I don't know that the following thing will work, but as you and I talk a lot about what it means to subscribe to Impact Theory, right? What does it mean to say, "I think the way that Tom thinks through this problem is a meaningful way"? I steer from base assumptions. If we could get people to just be obsessed with, "Okay, you want to put that policy forward, but what's the base assumption that drives that?" For instance, if Kamala Harris says things like, "The only just world is a world in which everybody has the same thing," I'm out. The reason I'm out is that if that were her base assumption, it would be in direct conflict with my base assumption, which is that if people are not allowed to pursue disproportionate returns, they won't. Therefore, you never get anything that delivers disproportionate returns because they know that it's crabs in a bucket; they're going to be held back.

Human ingenuity, human passion, desires, and intelligence are evenly distributed across populations as far as I can tell, but they are not evenly distributed from individual to individual. It's been heartbreaking for me. I'll agree with people that Musk is a loose cannon, cool, but he's also the most effective entrepreneur in living memory, maybe ever. When people attack the second part—that, "Hey, if you think he's unhinged and you hate his views, I get it"—that's a value system, that's a belief system, and I totally understand how people can believe different things and value different things. No problem.

However, when you look at the objective reality of what somebody's accomplished, it's insane. The number of billion-dollar companies that he's built—people don't understand how hard that is. It’s incredibly difficult, and he's done it as an engineer; he hasn't done it as a finance guy. He is manifesting things in the real world that other people have not been able to manifest.

That's where I start running into trouble. I want people to lay out what their base assumptions are. I want them to understand how their base assumptions conflict with somebody else's. If I hear somebody saying, "Oh, this is my base assumption that we want everybody to end up in the same place," I'm like, "History tells us that that's an absolutely abhorrent idea." The only way to achieve that is by force because of the fact that you have Elon Musk and you have not-Elon Musks. People have to deal with the world the way that it is, not the way they wish it were. I also wish it were that intelligence was equally distributed because I wish I were a lot smarter, but the reality is, it's not.

=> 00:29:39

People need to confront reality rather than wish for a world where everyone ends up in the same place; history shows us that equality often comes at a cost.

In discussions about societal issues, it's crucial to recognize that other people have not been able to manifest their perspectives effectively. This is where I often encounter challenges. I want individuals to clearly lay out what their base assumptions are and to understand how these assumptions can conflict with those of others. For instance, if someone asserts, "oh this is my base assumption that we want everybody to end up in the same place," I respond by highlighting that history tells us that that's an absolutely AB Boren idea. The only way to achieve such uniformity is through force, given the existence of individuals like Elon Musk and others who do not share the same status.

People need to confront the world as it is, rather than how they wish it to be. I, too, wish for a scenario where it was just all equally distributed intelligence, as I would love to be much smarter. However, the reality is that we must all deal with the hand we are dealt. Currently, many are not doing so. To get the right people on the ballot, we must evaluate things based on base assumptions. Unfortunately, I believe the average person lacks the bandwidth or desire to engage in this level of critical thinking.

You are famously a one-issue voter, often discussing inflation with every guest that walks through the door. After watching the recent debate, do you feel better about inflation? Do you believe one candidate or the other has a plan that makes you less anxious about it? To be honest, literally neither of them talk about it. I am uncertain if they even consider it. We have experienced both a Biden Harris presidency and a Trump presidency, and they're each as bad as the other. It’s truly astonishing that people are not paying attention and believe they can continue to go deeper and deeper into debt forever, without facing consequences.

As a student of history, I recognize the feedback loop that exists within the human mind. If we can borrow from the future, we will do so, even those of us with children. Historically, there comes a point when we face a debt Jubilee. This term is notoriously misnamed because what it often results in is bloodshed, allowing people to overturn the tables and declare, "you're never getting your money back." This is the harsh reality; sometimes, it leads to violent outcomes where one side asserts dominance, or we witness decapitations in the streets—a stark reminder from history, particularly looking at France.

I don't mean to suggest that violence is the only outcome, but statistically, 85% of the time it does end in bloodshed. There are real consequences to our behavior. When considering whether we are closer to a scenario like Venezuela, where hyperinflation leads our economy to tank, or if we are heading towards bloodshed and war, it seems that violence is the most likely outcome given the current global climate.

One particularly fascinating aspect is that China hasn't moved on Taiwan, even with Biden still president. This situation is intriguing, especially since Biden has been perceived as having cognitive decline. It raises questions about whether China believes that whoever represents Biden would retaliate, or if they are experiencing their own dysfunction, missing their opportunity to act.

Given the ongoing conflicts in Israel and Gaza, as well as Russia and Ukraine, it is clear that violence is in the air. If tensions in the Middle East escalate, it could lead to significant problems. However, the situation we should be most concerned about is Russia and Ukraine. Unless this conflict results in a stalemate, we may find ourselves in a scenario where Ukraine is diminished to the point of becoming what John Mimer calls a rump state, leading to a situation where we no longer need to worry about it.

=> 00:33:45

In a world where beliefs shape our reality, it's crucial to understand the values behind our leaders' decisions—because the future we want depends on it.

The discussion revolves around the potential for retaliation and the dysfunction that may prevent certain actions from being taken. It raises the question of whether we are missing opportunities due to a lack of readiness. This situation is particularly fascinating in light of current global events.

Given what's going on in Israel and Gaza, as well as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it is clear that violence is in the air. If tensions in the Middle East escalate further, it could lead to significant problems. However, the situation we should be most concerned about is the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Unless this conflict reaches a stalemate, there is a risk that Ukraine could be diminished to what John Mimer describes as a rump state, effectively becoming a puppet for Russia. In this scenario, NATO may be deterred from intervening, but if NATO continues to engage or if we escalate our support for Ukraine, the consequences could be severe.

Reflecting on the past, during the 1980s, there was a general awareness of the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. People understood that both sides possessed significant nuclear arsenals, and the focus was on de-escalation to avoid catastrophic outcomes. Today, however, it seems that many are being cavalier about the risks, leading to an increase in tensions.

As we conclude this discussion, it is important to emphasize that the policies you choose have very important consequences for the economy. Individuals should consider the implications of their choices for both the present and the future, particularly in relation to the next generation. While I do not have children, I think a lot about the future for all kids. We all desire to live in a world where the economy thrives, allowing us to create things that improve people's lives. If your sole focus is on winning an election, you may find yourself in trouble. Instead, stepping back to consider how people are thinking through these problems is crucial.

Interestingly, it has been noted that Trump is going on long-form podcasts, though I have not watched any of them myself. I doubt they are asking him policy questions, and I would love to see Kamala Harris engage in similar discussions to help us understand how she would react to unexpected situations.

To provide some context, your frame of reference is shaped by three components: your biology, which accounts for 50% of who you are, and the remaining 50% consists of your beliefs and values. It is essential to recognize that people often confuse beliefs with objective truth. Beliefs are rarely objective truths; rather, objective truth pertains to physical reality, which we do not fully comprehend. This lack of understanding is why discussions about truth can become convoluted, as seen in debates involving figures like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris.

It is crucial to be thoughtful about mapping out candidates' beliefs and values. Beliefs represent what you perceive to be true about the world, while values reflect what you believe ought to be true. For instance, I believe that people ought to have the opportunity to pursue excellence, whereas some may argue that everyone should have the same outcomes. This distinction is a value judgment rather than an objective assessment of reality.

If you can identify a candidate's beliefs and values, you can better understand how they will respond to unforeseen challenges. My concern regarding Donald Trump is that he may not be fully aware of his own beliefs and values. If asked to articulate the principles that underpin his policies or worldview, he may struggle to do so. He tends to rely on his gut reactions, which is why he often appears unprepared. He approaches situations with a sense of confidence based on his experiences, believing he understands the world intuitively.

=> 00:37:52

Judgment isn't just about what is; it's about what we believe the world should be. Understanding a candidate's true values is crucial for navigating unknown challenges.

Judgment is not merely an "is"; rather, it reflects what we think the world ought to be. If you can map your candidate's beliefs to this framework, then it's reassuring. If those beliefs are genuinely held, when they encounter an unknown problem, they will anchor around those beliefs. However, my concern with Donald Trump is that he may not be cognizantly aware of what his beliefs and values are. If you were to ask him to articulate the beliefs and values that shape his policies or worldview, you might not receive a clear answer. He seems to rely heavily on his gut reactions, which is why he often appears unprepared. He enters discussions with a sense of confidence, stating, "this is how I see the world," and while he has been effective in his approach, it does not serve him well when faced with unforeseen challenges.

On the other hand, I have concerns about Kamala Harris. She has shifted her positions on various issues, and while she claims, "I've changed my positions but not my values," I wonder what those values truly are. It would be beneficial for her to articulate them clearly. If we can understand the ideas driving her policies, we can better assess whether we have a problem. Additionally, I find it interesting that the military-industrial complex is very real, and we must consider where the money flows in politics. Who does the money want to see win? People who are anti-Elon Musk may feel uneasy about him and other billionaires, but then there's the fact that figures like Dick Cheney and even Putin have expressed support for Kamala Harris. This raises questions that I haven't fully processed yet, but it's something I believe warrants serious consideration.

My honest answer is that I don't have enough evidence to support my views, which is why I remain somewhat coy. However, given how the Democrats treated RFK, whom I was leaning towards, I found their efforts to keep him off the ballot to be hyper undemocratic. I am okay with my perspective losing, as long as it loses in a fair fight. I genuinely believe that even those we may consider misguided should have a vote, as this is the only way to avoid the tyranny of the elites. I feel that we have been manipulated by the so-called elites for a long time, and that realization is quite sinister.

In a quick-fire round of questions, I was asked who won the debate, and I would say Kamala Harris. The biggest surprise was that she performed significantly better than expected; some of her early clips had me concerned. When asked if politics can be fixed, I expressed optimism. I believe that independent media could create a groundswell over the next 10 to 15 years, potentially swinging public opinion. Historically, we have seen positive changes, and it would be absurd to think that only negative events can recur while positive ones cannot.

Regarding policies that should have been discussed more, I think the focus should have been on the debt and the economy. It should have been a three-hour discussion centered on their base assumptions about the economy and how they plan to address it. As a pet owner, I found Trump's remarks about pets to be puzzling. If I were coaching him, I would advise him to refrain from making throwaway comments that may seem like red meat to his base but lack context and credibility. These remarks can detract from his message, even if they are true.

Lastly, when asked who I think will win in November, I admitted that for the first time, I don't have a solid read. Before the debate, I thought Trump was going to win easily, but after seeing Harris present herself as very presidential, my perspective shifted. Trump appeared as his usual self, but in a less appealing manner. Now, I need to determine if Harris's current statements reflect a genuine change in her core beliefs. If she can articulate updated base assumptions, that would be promising. However, if this is merely political manipulation, then I would sound the alarms and run for the hills.

If you liked that clip, check out another powerful clip right here, and I'll see you there.

Finally, regarding the difference between today and the 2008 market crash, the latter was characterized by no income, no assets—NINA loans. Banks were providing loans left and right, often based on stated income, which contributed to the crisis.